BOOK SPECIAL...... Carl Sagan on Moving Beyond Us vs. Them, Bridging Conviction with Compassion, and Meeting Ignorance with Kindness

“Unless we are very, very careful,” wrote psychologist-turned-artist Anne Truitt in
contemplating compassion
and the cure for our chronic self-righteousness, “we doom each other by holding onto images of
one another based on preconceptions that are in turn based on indifference to
what is other than ourselves.” She urged for “the honoring of others
in a way that grants them the grace of their own autonomy and allows mutual
discovery.” But how are we to find in ourselves the capacity — the willingness
— to honor otherness where we see only ignorance and bigotry in beliefs not
only diametrically opposed to our own but dangerous to the very fabric of
society?

That’s what Carl Sagan (November
9, 1934–December 20, 1996) explores with characteristic intelligence and
generosity of spirit in the seventeenth chapter of The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark — the masterwork published shortly before
his death, which gave us Sagan on science
as a tool of democracy and his
indispensable Baloney
Detection Kit.

Sagan considers how we can bridge conviction
and compassion in dealing with those who disagree with and even attack our
beliefs. Although he addresses the particular problems of pseudoscience and
superstition, his elegant and empathetic argument applies to any form of
ignorance and bigotry. He explores how we can remain sure-footed and rooted in
truth and reason when confronted with such dangerous ideologies, but also have
a humane and compassionate intention to understand the deeper fears and
anxieties out of which such unreasonable beliefs arise in those who hold them

He writes:

When we are asked to swear in American
courts of law — that we will tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth” — we are being asked the impossible. It is simply beyond our powers.
Our memories are fallible; even scientific truth is merely an approximation;
and we are ignorant about nearly all of the Universe…

[…]

If
it is to be applied consistently, science imposes, in exchange for its manifold
gifts, a certain onerous burden: We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable
it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural
institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told;
to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view
ourselves as we really are… Because its explanatory power is so great, once you
get the hang of scientific reasoning you’re eager to apply it everywhere. However,
in the course of looking deeply within ourselves, we may challenge notions that
give comfort before the terrors of the world.

Sagan notes that all of us are deeply
attached to and even defined by our beliefs, for they define
our reality and are thus elemental to our very
selves, so any challenge to our core beliefs tends to feel like a personal
attack. This is equally true of ourselves as it is of those who hold opposing
beliefs — such is the human condition. He considers how we can reconcile our
sense of intellectual righteousness with our human fallibility:

In the way that skepticism is sometimes
applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to
condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition
and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics,
are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be.
Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has
not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us
temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

But kindness, Sagan cautions, doesn’t mean
assent — there are instances, like when we are faced with bigotry and hate
speech, in which we absolutely must confront and critique these harmful
beliefs, for “every silent assent will encourage [the person] next time, and
every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice.” He writes:

If we offer too much silent assent
about [ignorance] — even when it seems to be doing a little good — we abet a
general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome,
and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent
balance takes wisdom.

The greatest detriment to reason, Sagan
argues, is that we let our reasonable and righteous convictions slip into
self-righteousness, that deadly force of polarization:

The chief deficiency I see in the
skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have
a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these
stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and
if not, you’re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive… Whereas, a
compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of
pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted. If we
understand this, then of course we feel the uncertainty and pain of the
abductees, or those who dare not leave home without consulting their
horoscopes, or those who pin their hopes on crystals from Atlantis.

Or, say, those who vote for a racist, sexist,
homophobic, misogynistic, climate-change-denying political leader.

Sagan’s central point is that we humans — all
of us — are greatly perturbed by fear, anxiety, and uncertainty, and in seeking
to becalm ourselves, we sometimes anchor ourselves to irrational and ignorant
ideologies that offer certitude and stability, however illusory. In
understanding those who succumb to such false refuges, Sagan calls for
“compassion for kindred spirits in a common quest.” Echoing 21-year-old Hillary
Rodham’s precocious assertion that “we
are all of us exploring a world that none of us understand,” he argues that the dangerous beliefs of ignorance
arise from “the feeling of powerlessness in a complex, troublesome and
unpredictable world.”

In envisioning a society capable of
cultivating both critical thinking and kindness, Sagan’s insistence on the role
and responsibility of the media resonates with especial poignancy today:

Both
skepticism and wonder are skills that need honing and practice. Their
harmonious marriage within the mind of every schoolchild ought to be a
principal goal of public education. I’d love to see such a domestic felicity
portrayed in the media, television especially: a community of people really
working the mix — full of wonder, generously open to every notion, dismissing
nothing except for good reason, but at the same time, and as second nature,
demanding stringent standards of evidence — and these standards applied with at
least as much rigor to what they hold dear as to what they are tempted to
reject with impunity.

The
Demon-Haunted World remains one of the
great intellectual manifestos of the past century. Complement it with Sagan
on science
and spirituality, his timeless
toolkit for critical thinking, and
this lovely
animated adaptation of his famous Pale Blue Dot monologue
about our place in the cosmos.